I would've liked an idea on how to balance out the draw, to me that's the main issue with the fixture. My thoughts: remove the pre-season comp, 25 round season (excl byes.), you play every team once, then a lottery is held to determine who you play in the remaining 8 rounds.

With 18 teams it is tough to work out such a draw - but even then that is not commercial minded - only football minded. Peter Jackson cares more about when we play and the commercial drivers in our fixture than how 'fair' it is from a footballing sense. That's why I didn't touch on that aspect of the fixture in this equalisation thread.

I like point 14, however the logistics are prohibitive, especially in regards to how these players would be treated under the salary cap. Additionally, with a 44 player list (based on the idea the rookie list is abolished), how relevant is this? It would also mean that young key position players wouldn't get drafted. Why would you take a prospective 18yo ruckman, when you can get a hardbodied 28 yo who will have a better immediate impact halfway through the system. Essentially the only players who would get drafted would be players ready to play AFL immediately.

I don't think young key position players should get drafted. Unless you can contribute with some skill right away - or near to it - you should not be drafted. And that's with today's landscape.

I can understand the desire to keep these young tall teens away from Basketball but I really don't think it is in anyone's interest to draft these kids on the promise that 5 years down the track they might be footballers.

So the rule allows for teams to be protected from injuries to their players with agreements with state league players. This will keep a team like the MFC from spending the first 3 games without a forward over 6".

I think that fear is overblown. The state leagues will be given a boon with these kids playing their teenage years there.

I agree, but it's the AFL that we're talking about, common sense is not a common trait with those in power.

Your missus must detest you.rpfc

Either that or you went to private school.

A lot of good ideas, some not so good ones too.

Agree re: abolishing the rookie list and raising the draft age.

On fixturing, I'd group certain categories of timeslot together and ensure that clubs are, as close as possible, even across them. So put Friday night with Saturday afternoon and Saturday night, and ensure clubs have, for example, 2-3 home games and 5-6 games total. I'd do the same for Saturday twilight, Sunday 1.10 and Sunday twilight. I'd also ensure that no team plays consecutive Friday night games, every team plays at least once in every timeslot, and there is some sort of balance in the split between day-night and between Victorian-interstate home games. It can't all be done, but none of it is being done at the moment.

Don't agree on some of the contract points - trading contracted players is not necessary IMO.

On the percentage lottery, it sounds good in theory but almost any system is tankable. On rpfc's current plan it's too hard to work out.

Your missus must detest you.rpfc

Either that or you went to private school.

It can't be both?

Seriously, what a contribution...

Don't agree on some of the contract points - trading contracted players is not necessary IMO.

On the percentage lottery, it sounds good in theory but almost any system is tankable. On rpfc's current plan it's too hard to work out.

Wit the trading of contracted players; the best players can easily get No Trade Clauses in their contracts with the rest having to deal with what every other professional sporting player in a draft regulated league has to deal with - going to teams without their direct consent.

Teenagers don't get to decide where they go so I don't see how one can argue that when it comes to being traded - the players suddenly have this power about where they go.

With the percentage deciding the order of the draft - if you increase your percentage the most from the point you are mathematically ineligible to make the finals - you get a higher pick. That is the essence of it.

RPFC - I think you have far too much time on your hands. Given you live in Canberra, I'm presuming you would work in a government department, which would explain the time that you put in to this thread.

That said, I'll propose a couple of additional equalisation measures that I think would be the best starting point for Gill.

1. Football department expenditure cap. I think that the amount that the rich clubs can spend compared to the poor makes it harded to play catch up. That said, a cap shouldn't be introduced to totally disadvantage the rich clubs. For example, if we spend $35m a year on FD expenditure, and Collingwood spend $70m, a cap of around $50-55m could be introduced. It means the poor clubs aren't getting off lightly, but it is giving them something to strive toward, an achievable goal to allow them to compete with stronger clubs.

2. Football science/supplements. A clear, brief list of what supplements are allowed to be used, quantities of each, etc. That's it. While I'm sure we have our own supplements (legal) that we use, if other clubs are using more "state of the art" juice, then it is totally unfair.

3. The fairest way to do the draw would be to have an 18 round fixture, playing home one year and away the next. This won't happen. But I don't see how, in the current state, where we play the same team twice within a 6 week period, yet there are teams we haven't played at all. This cannot be fair. Bring back when you play all teams from round 1-17, then round 18 sees teams play who they played in round 1. Round 1 of the following season would see teams play who they played in round 6 (or whatever it is) from the year before. It'd be like a 5 year rolling draw until we all played each other 4 times, with 2 games at home, and 2 games away. Hope that makes sense.

I can appreciate the AFL scheduling large crowd-drawing games, and to be honest, I don't have an issue with it. While I would like to see the MFC playing more Friday night games, the reality is that we stink at the moment, and neutral code watchers would be put off by what they would see. That's not good for the game.

We are part of the "group" of clubs that need to accept a lot of responsibility for where we are at. We shouldn't be given things on a platter to compete with sides that have performed better than us. Therefore, equalising very specific things such as a FD cap is a fair and resonable start, and should be close to the number one prioirity of Gill (in my view).

I like the concept of making the games more meaningful, but I don't think CPD is the answer. It's already impossible to get an equal fixture, but having draft picks determined over the last half a dozen games just won't work. GWS, Melbourne & Brisbane are pretty close on the ladder at the moment. The remainder of the season is similar for us & GWS, but Brisbane cop the Crows, Collinwood, Fremantle & the Cats in the last 4 rounds. I can't see them improving their percentage much with that.

I think getting rid of the Rookie list is a good idea. Maybe you can also add 1 or 2 minimum picks that teams must make each year.

Free Agency

1. Bands 4 and 5 nixed and those that fell in these categories made irrelevant to compensation. Bands 1, 2, and 3 remain as is.

Those that are a loss will be in the first 3 categories – those just looking for new homes at close to minimum salaries are now removed from the compensation process. This would allow a club like MFC recruit low-end FAs while still maintaining the compensation level for losing a player like Frawley.

2. Max years for opposition teams capped at 5

This will not allow a team like Sydney to offer more than 5 years to a prospective FA. A FAs own team can offer as many years as it likes.

rpfc you've obviously given this more thought than me but what about this

in a normal transfer of a player the receiving club has to give up money (contract) + either a draft pick or a player(s)

under FA the receiving club only has the direct penalty of money

how about the receiving club has to given up a draft pick "equal" to the band the afl awards the original club

e.g. mfc loses FA to Sydney and gets band 1 i.e. pick 3. Sydney has to give up band 1 pick i.e. pick 18

rpfc you've obviously given this more thought than me but what about this

in a normal transfer of a player the receiving club has to give up money (contract) + either a draft pick or a player(s)

under FA the receiving club only has the direct penalty of money

how about the receiving club has to given up a draft pick "equal" to the band the afl awards the original club

e.g. mfc loses FA to Sydney and gets band 1 i.e. pick 3. Sydney has to give up band 1 pick i.e. pick 18

dc you are forgetting one ellement

The players union is about making the whole process of moving as easy as possible.

They would never agree to something that makes it harder.

Their desire is no compensation all.

dc you are forgetting one ellement

The players union is about making the whole process of moving as easy as possible.

They would never agree to something that makes it harder.

Their desire is no compensation all.

of course od (you left out the tv execs too)

...but rpfc's premise for this thread is a better formula for equalisation

rpfc you've obviously given this more thought than me but what about this

in a normal transfer of a player the receiving club has to give up money (contract) + either a draft pick or a player(s)

under FA the receiving club only has the direct penalty of money

how about the receiving club has to given up a draft pick "equal" to the band the afl awards the original club

e.g. mfc loses FA to Sydney and gets band 1 i.e. pick 3. Sydney has to give up band 1 pick i.e. pick 18

This has been brought up and there is precedent for it in the MLB in the US.

BUT...and I think this is a big but...it hurts the lower end teams more when they get a 'Band 1' player in FA as their pick sacrifice will be higher. It would essentially stop the bottom 5 or 6 teams from going after the best FAs.

This has been brought up and there is precedent for it in the MLB in the US.

BUT...and I think this is a big but...it hurts the lower end teams more when they get a 'Band 1' player in FA as their pick sacrifice will be higher. It would essentially stop the bottom 5 or 6 teams from going after the best FAs.

good point.......i'll think more on it - lol

Revenues

16. All matchday revenues are to be shared equally among the 18 teams (gate, membership (discounted entry), catering, reserved seating)

Again, welcome to the 21^st century of equalised leagues. This is done in the NBA and NFL and if we are to truly emulate their strategies should be in place here. The AFL has already tried with the beverage agreement being shared but this is the thing that will make a huge difference to the bottom line of clubs and finally settle the question of whether the league makes the big teams or the big teams make the league (Hint: it is the former)

Even if they don't / won't go this far now, I honestly cannot see why, perhaps after deducting genuine 'running expenses', revenue for each and every game should not dh split 50/50 between the competing clubs.

As an example, if Melbourne play Hawthorn at the G, with a crowd of 50k, what really is the difference if it is our or their home game??

Yet under the current system it is one takes all - how can that be 'fair'??

Edited July 18, 201410 yr by monoccular

I like the idea of reducing the lists to ~30. Players only get drafted when they are ready to play.

It would take a few years to get the list number that low but it would strengthen the quality of the AFL, and strengthen the quality of the list leagues.

To do so would mean draft age is still 18. Ready to go kids can be drafted, talls can develop.

To do this we would need to have a second tier comp, either nationally or in Victoria, that was sufficiently funded to allow development of young players as required. Funding is required for both coaching/development and player payments. Players could enter this system from 16 but if they are signed at 16 they need to be given 3 year contracts to get them through high school part time. Similar the system should require all school leavers joining the system to enrol in a post footy program of some kind, be it higher education or trade, for their first two years in the system, to ready them for leaving the system.

Edited July 18, 201410 yr by deanox

Free Agency

One thing I forgot entirely was the extension of a form of FA and trade period for the first 3 months of the season.

The FA would be essentially for injury replacements, early retirements, voided contracts but the trade period would be where a club can trade for what it needs in-season - something that I think would be very useful to some clubs and enliven the sport itself.